Our View: Safety Zones’ may not be the answer

Friday

Dec 27, 2013 at 2:01 AM

It’s hard to find fault with a proposal from two lawmakers to create a safety zone around schools and other gathering points for children by prohibiting sex offenders from living or being within 1,000 feet of such areas.

Especially here in Norwich and Montville considering the public outcry over the recent controversies surrounding the state Department of Corrections’ placement of sex offenders in city neighborhoods that include parks and fields where children play. Montville is home to the January House at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correction Center, the only sex offender treatment center in the state.

There’s no doubt that the intentions of Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Dreby, and Sen. Joe Crisco, D-Woodbridge, -- co-sponsors of the legislation introduced for the next session -- are sincere, their only concern the safety of children. But the unintended consequences could cause far more harm than good.

A safety zone of that size would overlap in populated major or mid-sized urban centers, thus eliminating most possibilities of sex offenders being placed in suitable housing there and leaving only rural communities as options.

The plan is modeled after the state’s “drug-free zones’ that automatically increase the criminal penalties for those caught with drugs within 1,500 feet of a school. That has resulted in those convicted of drug offenses in urban centers receiving stiffer penalties than those convicted of the same offense elsewhere. The Connecticut Sentencing Commission last week unanimously approved sending a recommendation to the Legislature that the drug free zones be reduced from 1,500 feet to 200 feet.

The Legislature might also wish to consider a similar approach to the issue of sex offender residency, or better yet, work more closely the corrections department in establishing measures to increase safety.

There are currently 2,284 sex offenders under probationary supervision living in communities today. Residency restrictions on where they can live, work, go and not go are imposed on case-by-case basis.

Creating more restrictions by imposing blanket “safety zones” will only create more problems in finding suitable residency options in the future.